[governance] Re: IGC Statement -Questionnaire as of July 15
Ginger Paque
gpaque at gmail.com
Thu Jul 16 08:38:32 EDT 2009
Thanks for continuing to add your views. Please keep the discussion
going so that we can resolve these issues. I also remind you that we
need to discuss Shiva's text for Q6 as well. Opinions?
I think Shiva has a good idea. However, I think we should go with the
short alternate text, for the sake of consensus, and ask that Shiva
submit his complete statement as a personal contribution.
On the "non-binding" point, I agree with Ian, that our best compromise
may be to use the "may suffer" alternate. Is this acceptable to
everyone, or should we drop it? Do a significant number of people oppose it?
Is there any disagreement on other points?
Thanks everyone. I know this has been a long process, with too many
emails from me. I appreciate your patience. I do think it is important
that the IGC submit this completed questionnaire, and I thank Bill for
pointing it out.
Best, Ginger
Ian Peter wrote:
> Just so my position is clear I am happy with the “may suffer”
> compromise, or alternatively with Bill’s text. But as others are
> clearly opposed to Bill’s text and it won’t pass consensus, I will not
> oppose “may suffer”. The question now is whether inclusion with “may
> suffer” will be accepted in a consensus statement or whether the whole
> paragraph should be dropped. My reading is the paragraph should be in
> the text unless a a significant number of people oppose it.
>
> What say ye? Do we include or not include the following paragraph
>
> Q6 Similarly, we must no longer avoid considering the need for new
>
> structures and processes for the IGF that would allow
> it to produce more
> tangible outputs through a process of reasoned
> deliberation. The IGC
> contends that the IGF as a whole may suffer in the
> long term if it does
> not prove its value to the international community by
> adopting
> mechanisms for the production of non-binding
> statements on Internet
>
> public policy issues.
>
>
>
> On 16/07/09 3:33 PM, "Parminder" <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
>
> Comments below.
>
> Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
>
> On 16/07/2009, at 9:22 AM, Ian Peter wrote:
>
>
>
> 3)?? How to deal with--leave as is, remove??,
> Q6 Similarly, we must no longer avoid considering the
> need for new
> structures and processes for the IGF that would allow
> it to produce more
> tangible outputs through a process of reasoned
> deliberation. The IGC
> contends that the IGF as a whole will suffer in the
> long term it does
> not prove its value to the international community by
> adopting
> mechanisms for the production of **NON-BINDING**
> statements on Internet
> public policy issues.]
>
> or change to Bill's suggestion of:
>
> "Tunis Agenda 72g mandates the IGF to make
> recommendations 'where
> appropriate.' IGF stakeholders have been divided as to
> whether the
> requirement of appropriateness ever has been or could
> be met. IGC
> members also have been divided on these matters, with
> some strongly
> favoring and others just as strongly opposing the
> adoption of
> recommendations. Since significant disagreements on
> this matter have
> colored perceptions of and participation in the IGF,
> the IGC believes it
> is necessary to have an open, inclusive, and probing
> multistakeholder
> dialogue on whether adopting recommendations ever
> could be appropriate
> and on the possible implications of such negotiations
> for the IGF's
> unique character."
>
>
> Yes I like Bill's text
>
>
> I don't like it at all I'm afraid (sorry Bill) - and I should
> also note that despite the highlighting of **NON-BINDING**
> above suggesting that this wording was a change, in fact it
> wasn't - it was in my original.
>
> I'm not going to raise a fuss about the other compromises, but
> I think I have to stand my ground on this one. First, it
> exaggerates the effect of the qualifier "where appropriate".
> Those words cannot be used to detract from the mandate.
> Raising even the possibility that it might *never* be
> appropriate to make recommendations, is effectively to
> abrogate paragraph 72(g) altogether. Nobody has the authority
> to do that - and still less should civil society be suggesting
> it! What could it possibly gain us to rule out the possibility
> that civil society could ever have real input into development
> of Internet public policy through a multi-stakeholder
> deliberative process?
>
> If anything we should advocate for the *narrowest* possible
> interpretation of "where appropriate"; for example, to say
> that the qualifier is basically redundant - as even if there
> were no controversy about making policy recommendations in
> principle, there will always be particular issues on which it
> would not be appropriate to do so (perhaps the emerging issue
> is still evolving quickly).
>
> My second objection is that the suggested replacement is far
> too limiting as it is not only pursuant to 72(g) on
> recommendations that the IGF could produce non-binding
> outputs. A document might also need to be produced by the IGF
> in order to facilitate discourse between or to interface with
> other bodies, or to propose ways and means to accelerate the
> availability and affordability of the Internet in the
> developing world, or to assess the embodiment of WSIS
> principles in Internet governance processes, or to find
> solutions to the issues arising from the use and misuse of the
> Internet... or indeed in almost any of the paragraphs of its
> mandate.
>
> As a compromise I would accept changing "will suffer" to "may
> suffer", which waters it down to a similar extent as has been
> proposed for the other paragraphs accepted by Ian. Beyond that
> though, this is looking less and less like a civil society
> statement and more like the kind of thing ISOC might put out.
> Frankly as Parminder has observed, if the IGC doesn't have the
> guts to push for increased civil society input into Internet
> policy development processes, I'm not sure who will. The end
> result is that consumer voices will continue to be
> disempowered and sidelined in favour of the incumbent
> government and big business interests.
>
>
> I completely agree. and also am firmly of the opinion that this
> part may not be diluted any further than the compromise "may
> suffer" that Jeremy has offered.
>
> I am not sure about the other side's position, and the firmness of
> it. Ian did agree earlier to the 'non-binding' part - and to the
> whole statement as it stands. Bill strongly suggested that it is
> not really so much his view (correct me if I am wrong but that is
> what I read from his email) but that of some significant others.
> Now who are these hidden others who do not want to step up and
> share their views. And if they do not care to, IGC statement can
> go without their views. The basis of IGC's positions is
> deliberation based consensus, and if people do not want to submit
> to this then it is entirely their choice.
>
> Ironical that we, through the suggested alternative text, are
> asking for a discussion on the subject (with a highly prejudiced
> language used in such asking) when we our selves in the IGC are
> not ready to discuss it. We have put forward a good number of
> arguments for more specific outcomes from the IGF and havent
> received a response. parminder
>
>
>
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
For all list information and functions, see:
http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
More information about the Governance
mailing list